IDAHO WilDERnESS
(proposed)
LEGEND
Wilderness Boundary
I proposed)
Primitive Area Boundary
~~ Exclusion
m:t:tllll;;ttl;ll~lli Addition
'.
_, .
. '
.• ~
2
• t t.- .. : ' ' '
RIUER
ImiDO l!!llDERFIE55
and
DIH~ Wlli!IERftE55 I
I pro~JHed I I,
LEGENq
Wilderness Boundary 1.
f proposed l
Primitive Area Boundary
Exclusion
Addition
CECIL 0. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Jim:
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
BOISE
September 1, 1976
This letter briefly summarizes the proposal I would like to recommend
to President Ford in keeping with his pledge at Yellowstone, Sunday,
to greatly expand public recreation lands. What I am proposing can
be easily accomplished, is cost free in terms of acquisition dollars
and would be genuinely significant in our western states in meeting
a part of the goal set forth by the President.
I am proposing that President Ford amend his wilderness recommendation
for Central Idaho to include the 400,000 acre Chamberlain Basin. The
initial Forest Service proposal included Chamberlain Basin. It re­mained
intact throughout the entire Forest Service review process at
all levels, including the Chief's office. However, it was dramatically
and severely impacted by the Secretary of Agriculture who authorized
its exclusion, a decision later sustained by the President and
forwarded to Congress.
Presently, the Chamberlain Basin is a part of two contiguous Idaho
Primitive Areas adjacent to the Salmon "River of No Return." They
were studied as required by the Wilderness Act (PL 88-577) for potential
inclusion into the wilderness system. As of this date, no congressional
activity has taken place.
The disposition of the Chamberlain Basin is, in my opinion, the single
most important wilderness resource decision to be made in Idaho,
possibly in the West. Justification for its exclusion was based
primarily on mineral and timber values even though the Bureau of Mines
and the Geological Survey describe the mineral potential as "small to
modest." In terms of total timber production for Idaho, the timber
, is less than a pittance.
Nowhere in the Continental United States is there a more ideal blend
of habitats for wildlife than Chamberlain and the surrounding canyons.
'This rolling, unroaded basin is sprinkled with streams, meadows,
timbered slopes and spruce bogs providing a high quality summer
habit'at for 190 species of wildlife.
Page 2
James M. Cannon
September 1, 1976
It is also a significant natural spawning grounds for salmon and
steelhead in the fishery troubled Columbia River System.
In short, Jim, this is a real issue. I am convinced it is a right and
timely issue and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the
matter with you later in September. To help you get a better per­spective
of the area involved, Russ Peterson, Nat Reed, John Quarles
and Tom Kimball are familiar with the issue and I encourage you to
consult them. At the very least, I am hopeful that you can help us
obtain a restudy of the decision to exclude the Chamberlain Basin.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
~~~s~~~~~ GOVERNOR
jhb
STATE OF IDAHO
Ceci! D. Andrus- Governor Lloyd D. Howe- Administrator
DIVISION OF TOURISM & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Capitol Building. Boise. Idaho 83720
(208) 384-24 70
December 27, 1973
.. (Datlt upd•ted to reflect changes as of Februllr!l 1975)
TESTIMONY OF THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF COM11ERCE AND DEVELOPMENT
SUB~1ITTED FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE HEARING RECORD FOR: THE
IDAHO PRIMITIVE AREA; THE SALl10N RIVER BREAKS PRIMITIVE AREA;
AND, THE SALMON RIVER THROUGH THE REGIONAL FORESTER, OGDEN,
UTAH. '·
The"St:at-.o.f:r.Id4ho.~s . De~tmltat:.:ofs Collllll&rca · and Developlllllllt:
support:ll> the basic U.s. Forest Service proposal to reclassify, as
wilderness, the Idaho and Salmon River Breaks Primitive Areas.
As the chief::developa.nt ·•gancg·of.·•the .State of Idaho, the
Department of Commerce and Development recognizes the dollar values
of the tourist, timber, and mining industries and their importance
to the state's economy. Together, tourism, timber and mining are
industries with the greatest stake in the wilderness issue.
Tourism, a $24J million industry; timber and wood products, a
$263.9 million industry and mining valued at $198 million are main­stays
of the total state product.
Since the timber industry has been actively involved in the re­classification
issue, the department has examined closely the potential
impact of timber development or non-development in the primitive areas.
The timber industry has grown continuously since 1960 when the
average annual labor force employed in the timber and wood products
sector was 11,900. Today, 1974, average annual employment is 15,854.
Value added by manufacture in the lumber and wood products industry
in 1963 was $88.6 million; 1967 $121.8 million; 1972 $262.9 million.
The timber industry has continued to grow significantly without
harvesting the timber resources of the primitive areas and indications
are that growth can continue 11i thout expanding into these regions.
ao.Aao
Meanwhile, the Idaho tourist industry has grown from a $120
million industry in 1960 to a $240 million industry in this 14
year span. The tourist industry is the third largest industry
in the state, and more importantly is not ~resource depleting
industry. In 19721 the Outfitters and Guides alone contributed
an estimated $64 million to Idaho's tourist industry.
The point is;. a significant percentage o:f the business
generated by the tourist industig is in the back country a~s
that are not being developed bg traditional methods. Tbe quality
of t1Ja Salmon River Drainage and surrounding basins is what attracts
the tourist, .and it is a proven destination area. Wilderness develop­ment
by timber or mining interests would destroy the very qualities
which attract tourists. Once these resources are developed, the·
remains are scars and resource depletion. After that, then what?
While tourists will return year after year; the minerals and timber
resources will not. We then have another theory of multiple use--­that
which can be utilized ~any times, ad infinitum, applicable to
the tourist industry but not to the mineral and timber utilization
of the Salmon River Drainage and feeding tributaries.
Of importance also is the regional impact;. associated with .!~~~~
Salmon Ri Wtr Drainage. Seagoing fish produced in Idaho watezs •
(prinCipally the Salmon .. River Drainage) are. important to the ocean
comma=ial fishing .industry, t:lle ocean sport fishing, the Columbi~
RiWtr·~=1al fisheries and the sport fisheries from the mouth of
the Columbia to the headwaters of the Salmon.
Idaho produces an estimated 56 percent of the upriver spring·
Chinook run and 55 percent of the Columbia River summer Steslhead rim'·
The ultimate destiny of this seagoing fishery is tied to the aquatic
habitat of the Salmon River Drainage. As a result, exploitation of
the Salmon River Drainage would effect Idaho economics from a tourism
standpoint, and affect the economy of Oregon and Washington as well,
from a tourist and commercial aspect.
However, in the Forest Service proposal there are two major areas
that were excluded---Big Creek and Monumental Creek. These two drainages
are major life-lines of the Salmon River and their watersheds must be
considered as irreplaceable. The only way to maintain the quality of
the Middle Fork and the anadro~ous fishery is to leave undisturbed the
drainages of the tributaries that feed it.
Only one of the three major industries with deep interest in the
future status of the primitive areas is spoken to directly in the Wilder­ness
Act. Mining is allowed, with certain restrictions, and some mineral
extraction is already underway inside the boundaries of the existing
primitive units.
However, where rrun~ng has been taking place, the pristine nature of
the area has diminished not only by the actual mining activity, but also
because road building brings recreational vehicles into the otherwise
wilderness setting.
-?-
The water quality of the Middle Fork of the Salmon has already
been diminished by dredge mining activity in a stream bed outside the
southern boundary of the Idaho Primitive Area. Upper Bear Valley Creek,
one of two streams which join to form the Middle Fork, still contributes
nearly 200 percent of the normal silt load even though mining activity
ceased 18 years ago. Mining activity along or near other streams which
ultimately flow into the primitive areas can jeopardize water quality
if steps are not taken to closely regulate development in watershed
areas. For this reason, the inclusion of additional lands surrounding
the primitive area which contain important streams would help provide
water quality protection throughout the proposed wilderness system.
It is very true that the exploitation of the pr.i.mit:!ve aze_.
would pla!l·a.-part in.'i:lll}ilroving the economy-but: it must _be •lllj)Mdzecf,,
that;-: it: I'Qul4. onl!l b6 a short: ~ improvement. ·If the tourist industry
generated only $10 million dollars per year for 50 years, as a direct
result of maintaining the Salmon River Drainage, that would be an
economic contribution of some $500 million dollars, without resource
depletion. This value would be added year after year over a long period
of time, rather than the short run benefits as a result of resource
development.
Rather than further exploitation of the wilderness areas, and in
advocating the u.s. Forest Service Wilderness proposal, the following
reCOJiml8lldatt~ are made:
l. Wild and Scenic River Classification of the
Main Salmon as proposed by the u.s. Forest
Service.
2. Place the Big Creek Drainage and Mon~~ntal
Creek Drainage back into the U.S. Forest Service
Wilderness Proposal.
3. Increase the size of the wilderness area to
include major creek and stream drainage areas
which presently are outside of the Primitive
Area boundaries.
4. A Forest Service increase in allowable cuts in
accessible and non-fragile timber areas.
5. Extensive reforestation programs by the u.s.
Forest Service and private industry to increase
the production of existing proven producers of
timber.
These programs are a necessity if we are to keep a resource base
for the timber industry and protect the wilderness areas. In other words,
we can have both, if we make an effort to better utilize existing harvest
areas.
_,_
In concluding, there are sufficient limds from which the
timber industry can continue their programs, rather than developing
the 3.4 percent of Idaho involved in the wilderness proposal.
Finally, it is, ·the conclu.sion of:t:ha Idaho Divis.i.cm or
Tourism·•&· Imfu.strioil. DeV&lopmant. that Konamic stability throughout:·
the st&te is ·be.st: .served" by wilderness cla,ssification or tbe
primitive area.s. Any short terJII impact from developllll!llJt would be
OV&rehadOHed by the perpetual loss of the natural character of
Idaho's heartland.
Administrator
Idaho Division of Tourism &
Ind~strial Development
'.,
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Phone 202-797-8800 I
September 24, 1976
The National Wildlife Federation has long been interested in wilderness preservation
in general and with the establishment of the Idaho Wilderness Area in particular.
Therefore, the Federation is puzzled and disturbed by the position of the
Administration in this instance since it calls for excluding the 386,492 acre
Chamberlain Basin from the 891,261 acre Idaho Wilderness proposal.
I have been into the area personally four times, the latest being the latter
part of July, and have had the privilege of meeting and discussing this matter
with Governor Andrus of Idaho, members of the Idaho Fish and Game Department,
faculty at the University of Idaho and interested citizen groups. I don't wish
to attempt to speak for anyone except the National Wildlife Federation and
our state affiliate, the Idaho Wildlife Federation, but I would like to urge
your reconsideration of the Administration's position to exclude the Chamberlain
Basin from the wilderness area.
In my view, this is the heart of the Idaho wilderness designation. Its
exclusion would largely negate the wilderness values in most of the surrounding
territory and could do irreparable damage to the area's forest resources. It is
my understanding that the area is excluded primarily at the insistence of commercial
timber operators who view this basin as an area where considerable harvest of
mature timber can take place. On the other hand, the fragile soils of the area
and the special care required in road building to prevent excessive stream siltation
•re factors which must be evaluated carefully.
'
Lumbering of the slopes of the South Fork of the Salmon River in past years greatly
impaired the quality of the water in the stream and destroyed important fish
spawning areas. It was generally concluded that the value of the timber was far
less than the damage done to the quality of the water and the fisheries values.
I earnestly and sincerely suggest a reconsideration of your position on this
important issue keeping in mind the significant trade-offs involved. If you
assess public opinion both in the area and throughout the nation,.! am confident
National Wildlife Federation
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford - 2 - September 24, 1976
that you will find almost unanimous agreement that the Chamberlain Basin should be
included in the Idaho Wilderness proposal sent earlier to the Congress. For your
additional information and use, I am enclosing a copy of a resolution addressing
this issue adopted by the National Wildlife Federation at its 1975 annual meeting.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Ch., Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
Ch., House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
Cecil D. Andrus, Governor of Idaho
Richard Schwarz, President, Idaho Wildlife Federation
P.W. Schneider, NWF Regional Executive
Ernest E. Day, NWP' ID Del.
...
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
The Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus,
October 28, 1976
I
On behalf of the Idaho Conservation League I extend my congratulations
and appreciation to you for the crucial role you and your staff played in the
recent reinstatement of Chamberlain Basin in the President's wilderness pro­posal
to Congress. We are all well aware of the work that you have done with
the White House staff, dating most recently back to September 1, which resulted
in bringing the "Chamberlain story" to the President's attention. We thank you
for your efforts .
Despite the fact that Congressman Symms recently received the "official
word" on the Basin from President Ford and is posing as the person who ini­tiated
the request for Chamberlain's protection, ICL members and other
Idahoans who support the area's wilderness classification doubt very seriously
that Mr. Symms had anything at all to do with Chamberlain's inclusion in the
presidential proposal. We know only too well that he has been generally an
opposing force, during his years in Congress, to the establishment of wilder­ness
in Central Idaho or anywhere else, for that matter. We are pleased to
see that he is finally supporting wilderness designation for Chamberlain, but
I must say that he is arriving rather late to the party. {Some of us are wondering
whether he will finally come to the Hell's Canyon celebration.) In any case, and
despite what may appear in the press or in political pronouncements, there are
many of us who understand quite clearly who Idaho's proven wilderness supporters
are.
I know that you will agree, in addition, that the real heroes of this contro­versy
are the thousands of Idaho citizens who have held fast against the timber
and mining interests, the Secretary of Agriculture and a couple of intransigent
congressmen on behalf of the wild lands of Central Idaho. Most of these Idahoans
will likely see the reinstatement of Chamberlain as a significant primary step
toward the eventual designation of a magnificent River of No Return Wilderness.
As you know, ICL supports the wilderness designation of 2. 3 million acres
in and around the Idaho Primitive Area, which include fourteen highly signifi­cant
contiguous areas. This position is supported by the majority of those who
testified at the Forest Service hearings and by thousands more who have signed
petitions requesting such a designation.
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
October 28, 1976
page two
From the day that Chamberlain's exc1s1on was announced, we felt confident
that the people of Idaho would strongly protest and eventually overcome such an
action, but feared Chamberlain 1s becoming a "bargaining piece" for the wild areas
surrounding the Idaho Primitive Area, some of which are included in your pro­posal.
Recently a Washington friend of ours was called to the White House to
present arguments in favor of Chamberlain from the point of view of some con­servation
organizations. He phoned us beforehand and asked for advice. We
replied that he should tell the President's people that if the President wanted to
exclude Chamberlain he could try, but that, short of vetoing the bill, he was
bound to lose because the people of Idaho (to say nothing of Frank Church and
Cecil Andrus) would not stand for it. Beyond that, our advice was: "Stand firm
on two-point-three. 11
So, now that you have helped greatly to eliminate Chamberlain as a poten­tial
bargaining piece in the wilderness controversy, perhaps we can all get on to
the real issue -- the protection of the contiguous areas. Again, we extend our
deepest appreciation to you for your efforts on behalf of one of Idaho's most
treasured resources.
Sincerely,
ern Jeff Fereday
Coordinator
PUBLIC LAW 94-579-0Cf. 21, 1976
Public Law 94-579
94th Congress
An Act
To establish public land poli<'Y: to estabU.sb guidelines for Its administration; to
provldl' for the management, 'Protection, development, and enhancement ot the
public lands; and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate a>•d Houae of Representative• of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TABI~E OF CONTENTS
TITLI~ 1-SHOR'l' TITJ.~:; POLICIES; DEFINITIONS
Ht>e, lOt. Short title.
He<". 102. DL>clurution of policy.
HI'<', 103. Definitions.
'rl'rLFJ II-J.ANU U8E PLANNING; [,AND ACQUISITION AND
DISPOSITION
Sec. 201. Inventory and identification.
Se<>. 202. Land use planning.
Sec. 203. Sales.
Het•. 204. Withdrawals.
Sec. 200. Acquisitions.
Se('. 206. Exchanges.
Sf>c. 207. Qualified conveyees.
St>c. 208. Conveyances.
Sec. 209. ResPrvatlon and conveyance of mineral interest
Sec. 210. Coordination with State and local governments.
S~. 211. Omitted lands.
Sec. 212. Re1·reation and Public Purposes Act.
Hec. 218. National forest townsltes.
Sec. 214. Unintentional Trespass Act.
UTLE III-ADMINIS1"RATION
Sec. 301. BLM directorate and functions.
Hec. 80:l. Management of use, occupancy, and development.
Sec. 303. }~nforcPmPnt authority.
Hef'. 304. Rervic'e c·harges and reimbursements.
Sec. 305. Deposits and forfeitures.
Sec. 306. Working capital i'und.
Se1•. 807. Studies, cooperative agreements, and oontrlbutions.
Sec. 808. Contra1~ts tor surveys and resource protection.
~ec. 809. Advisory councils and pubHc participation.
Sec. 310. Rules and regulations.
Hec. 811. Program report.
Sec. 312. Search and rescue.
~{'(', 813. Sunshine in governu1ent.
Sec. 814. Re<•ordation of mining claims and abandonment.
Sec. 315. Re(•ordable disclaimers of interest.
Sel.'. 316. Corredlon of conveyance documents.
Sec. 317. Mineral revenues.
Sec. 318. Apj)roprlatlon authorlzatlon.
TITI,E IV-RANGE MANAGEMENT
Sec. 401. Grazing fE"es.
Se('. 40'.l. Grazing leases aud permits.
Sel'. 403. Grazing advisory boards.
Sec. 404-. Management of cE"rtain horses and burros.
TITI,E V-RIGHTS·OF-WAY
~el'. 001. Authorization to grant rights-of-way.
Sec. 502. Cost-E-~hare road authorization.
SPc. 503. Corridors.
SE"e. U04. General provisions.
Sf'{•, 505. Tt>rms and conditions.
He<". r,oo. Suspension and termination of rights-of-way.
Sec. l'i07. Rights-of-way for Federal agencies.
Sec. 508. Conveyance of lands.
90 STAT. 2743
Oct. 21, 1976
[S. 507]
Federal Land
Policy and
Management
Act of 1976.
For full document, please contact
Boise State University I Albertsons Library
Special Collections and Archives
1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430
archives@boisestate.edu, 208-426-3958

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

IDAHO WilDERnESS
(proposed)
LEGEND
Wilderness Boundary
I proposed)
Primitive Area Boundary
~~ Exclusion
m:t:tllll;;ttl;ll~lli Addition
'.
_, .
. '
.• ~
2
• t t.- .. : ' ' '
RIUER
ImiDO l!!llDERFIE55
and
DIH~ Wlli!IERftE55 I
I pro~JHed I I,
LEGENq
Wilderness Boundary 1.
f proposed l
Primitive Area Boundary
Exclusion
Addition
CECIL 0. ANDRUS
GOVERNOR
James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Jim:
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
BOISE
September 1, 1976
This letter briefly summarizes the proposal I would like to recommend
to President Ford in keeping with his pledge at Yellowstone, Sunday,
to greatly expand public recreation lands. What I am proposing can
be easily accomplished, is cost free in terms of acquisition dollars
and would be genuinely significant in our western states in meeting
a part of the goal set forth by the President.
I am proposing that President Ford amend his wilderness recommendation
for Central Idaho to include the 400,000 acre Chamberlain Basin. The
initial Forest Service proposal included Chamberlain Basin. It re­mained
intact throughout the entire Forest Service review process at
all levels, including the Chief's office. However, it was dramatically
and severely impacted by the Secretary of Agriculture who authorized
its exclusion, a decision later sustained by the President and
forwarded to Congress.
Presently, the Chamberlain Basin is a part of two contiguous Idaho
Primitive Areas adjacent to the Salmon "River of No Return." They
were studied as required by the Wilderness Act (PL 88-577) for potential
inclusion into the wilderness system. As of this date, no congressional
activity has taken place.
The disposition of the Chamberlain Basin is, in my opinion, the single
most important wilderness resource decision to be made in Idaho,
possibly in the West. Justification for its exclusion was based
primarily on mineral and timber values even though the Bureau of Mines
and the Geological Survey describe the mineral potential as "small to
modest." In terms of total timber production for Idaho, the timber
, is less than a pittance.
Nowhere in the Continental United States is there a more ideal blend
of habitats for wildlife than Chamberlain and the surrounding canyons.
'This rolling, unroaded basin is sprinkled with streams, meadows,
timbered slopes and spruce bogs providing a high quality summer
habit'at for 190 species of wildlife.
Page 2
James M. Cannon
September 1, 1976
It is also a significant natural spawning grounds for salmon and
steelhead in the fishery troubled Columbia River System.
In short, Jim, this is a real issue. I am convinced it is a right and
timely issue and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the
matter with you later in September. To help you get a better per­spective
of the area involved, Russ Peterson, Nat Reed, John Quarles
and Tom Kimball are familiar with the issue and I encourage you to
consult them. At the very least, I am hopeful that you can help us
obtain a restudy of the decision to exclude the Chamberlain Basin.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
~~~s~~~~~ GOVERNOR
jhb
STATE OF IDAHO
Ceci! D. Andrus- Governor Lloyd D. Howe- Administrator
DIVISION OF TOURISM & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Capitol Building. Boise. Idaho 83720
(208) 384-24 70
December 27, 1973
.. (Datlt upd•ted to reflect changes as of Februllr!l 1975)
TESTIMONY OF THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF COM11ERCE AND DEVELOPMENT
SUB~1ITTED FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE HEARING RECORD FOR: THE
IDAHO PRIMITIVE AREA; THE SALl10N RIVER BREAKS PRIMITIVE AREA;
AND, THE SALMON RIVER THROUGH THE REGIONAL FORESTER, OGDEN,
UTAH. '·
The"St:at-.o.f:r.Id4ho.~s . De~tmltat:.:ofs Collllll&rca · and Developlllllllt:
support:ll> the basic U.s. Forest Service proposal to reclassify, as
wilderness, the Idaho and Salmon River Breaks Primitive Areas.
As the chief::developa.nt ·•gancg·of.·•the .State of Idaho, the
Department of Commerce and Development recognizes the dollar values
of the tourist, timber, and mining industries and their importance
to the state's economy. Together, tourism, timber and mining are
industries with the greatest stake in the wilderness issue.
Tourism, a $24J million industry; timber and wood products, a
$263.9 million industry and mining valued at $198 million are main­stays
of the total state product.
Since the timber industry has been actively involved in the re­classification
issue, the department has examined closely the potential
impact of timber development or non-development in the primitive areas.
The timber industry has grown continuously since 1960 when the
average annual labor force employed in the timber and wood products
sector was 11,900. Today, 1974, average annual employment is 15,854.
Value added by manufacture in the lumber and wood products industry
in 1963 was $88.6 million; 1967 $121.8 million; 1972 $262.9 million.
The timber industry has continued to grow significantly without
harvesting the timber resources of the primitive areas and indications
are that growth can continue 11i thout expanding into these regions.
ao.Aao
Meanwhile, the Idaho tourist industry has grown from a $120
million industry in 1960 to a $240 million industry in this 14
year span. The tourist industry is the third largest industry
in the state, and more importantly is not ~resource depleting
industry. In 19721 the Outfitters and Guides alone contributed
an estimated $64 million to Idaho's tourist industry.
The point is;. a significant percentage o:f the business
generated by the tourist industig is in the back country a~s
that are not being developed bg traditional methods. Tbe quality
of t1Ja Salmon River Drainage and surrounding basins is what attracts
the tourist, .and it is a proven destination area. Wilderness develop­ment
by timber or mining interests would destroy the very qualities
which attract tourists. Once these resources are developed, the·
remains are scars and resource depletion. After that, then what?
While tourists will return year after year; the minerals and timber
resources will not. We then have another theory of multiple use--­that
which can be utilized ~any times, ad infinitum, applicable to
the tourist industry but not to the mineral and timber utilization
of the Salmon River Drainage and feeding tributaries.
Of importance also is the regional impact;. associated with .!~~~~
Salmon Ri Wtr Drainage. Seagoing fish produced in Idaho watezs •
(prinCipally the Salmon .. River Drainage) are. important to the ocean
comma=ial fishing .industry, t:lle ocean sport fishing, the Columbi~
RiWtr·~=1al fisheries and the sport fisheries from the mouth of
the Columbia to the headwaters of the Salmon.
Idaho produces an estimated 56 percent of the upriver spring·
Chinook run and 55 percent of the Columbia River summer Steslhead rim'·
The ultimate destiny of this seagoing fishery is tied to the aquatic
habitat of the Salmon River Drainage. As a result, exploitation of
the Salmon River Drainage would effect Idaho economics from a tourism
standpoint, and affect the economy of Oregon and Washington as well,
from a tourist and commercial aspect.
However, in the Forest Service proposal there are two major areas
that were excluded---Big Creek and Monumental Creek. These two drainages
are major life-lines of the Salmon River and their watersheds must be
considered as irreplaceable. The only way to maintain the quality of
the Middle Fork and the anadro~ous fishery is to leave undisturbed the
drainages of the tributaries that feed it.
Only one of the three major industries with deep interest in the
future status of the primitive areas is spoken to directly in the Wilder­ness
Act. Mining is allowed, with certain restrictions, and some mineral
extraction is already underway inside the boundaries of the existing
primitive units.
However, where rrun~ng has been taking place, the pristine nature of
the area has diminished not only by the actual mining activity, but also
because road building brings recreational vehicles into the otherwise
wilderness setting.
-?-
The water quality of the Middle Fork of the Salmon has already
been diminished by dredge mining activity in a stream bed outside the
southern boundary of the Idaho Primitive Area. Upper Bear Valley Creek,
one of two streams which join to form the Middle Fork, still contributes
nearly 200 percent of the normal silt load even though mining activity
ceased 18 years ago. Mining activity along or near other streams which
ultimately flow into the primitive areas can jeopardize water quality
if steps are not taken to closely regulate development in watershed
areas. For this reason, the inclusion of additional lands surrounding
the primitive area which contain important streams would help provide
water quality protection throughout the proposed wilderness system.
It is very true that the exploitation of the pr.i.mit:!ve aze_.
would pla!l·a.-part in.'i:lll}ilroving the economy-but: it must _be •lllj)Mdzecf,,
that;-: it: I'Qul4. onl!l b6 a short: ~ improvement. ·If the tourist industry
generated only $10 million dollars per year for 50 years, as a direct
result of maintaining the Salmon River Drainage, that would be an
economic contribution of some $500 million dollars, without resource
depletion. This value would be added year after year over a long period
of time, rather than the short run benefits as a result of resource
development.
Rather than further exploitation of the wilderness areas, and in
advocating the u.s. Forest Service Wilderness proposal, the following
reCOJiml8lldatt~ are made:
l. Wild and Scenic River Classification of the
Main Salmon as proposed by the u.s. Forest
Service.
2. Place the Big Creek Drainage and Mon~~ntal
Creek Drainage back into the U.S. Forest Service
Wilderness Proposal.
3. Increase the size of the wilderness area to
include major creek and stream drainage areas
which presently are outside of the Primitive
Area boundaries.
4. A Forest Service increase in allowable cuts in
accessible and non-fragile timber areas.
5. Extensive reforestation programs by the u.s.
Forest Service and private industry to increase
the production of existing proven producers of
timber.
These programs are a necessity if we are to keep a resource base
for the timber industry and protect the wilderness areas. In other words,
we can have both, if we make an effort to better utilize existing harvest
areas.
_,_
In concluding, there are sufficient limds from which the
timber industry can continue their programs, rather than developing
the 3.4 percent of Idaho involved in the wilderness proposal.
Finally, it is, ·the conclu.sion of:t:ha Idaho Divis.i.cm or
Tourism·•&· Imfu.strioil. DeV&lopmant. that Konamic stability throughout:·
the st&te is ·be.st: .served" by wilderness cla,ssification or tbe
primitive area.s. Any short terJII impact from developllll!llJt would be
OV&rehadOHed by the perpetual loss of the natural character of
Idaho's heartland.
Administrator
Idaho Division of Tourism &
Ind~strial Development
'.,
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Phone 202-797-8800 I
September 24, 1976
The National Wildlife Federation has long been interested in wilderness preservation
in general and with the establishment of the Idaho Wilderness Area in particular.
Therefore, the Federation is puzzled and disturbed by the position of the
Administration in this instance since it calls for excluding the 386,492 acre
Chamberlain Basin from the 891,261 acre Idaho Wilderness proposal.
I have been into the area personally four times, the latest being the latter
part of July, and have had the privilege of meeting and discussing this matter
with Governor Andrus of Idaho, members of the Idaho Fish and Game Department,
faculty at the University of Idaho and interested citizen groups. I don't wish
to attempt to speak for anyone except the National Wildlife Federation and
our state affiliate, the Idaho Wildlife Federation, but I would like to urge
your reconsideration of the Administration's position to exclude the Chamberlain
Basin from the wilderness area.
In my view, this is the heart of the Idaho wilderness designation. Its
exclusion would largely negate the wilderness values in most of the surrounding
territory and could do irreparable damage to the area's forest resources. It is
my understanding that the area is excluded primarily at the insistence of commercial
timber operators who view this basin as an area where considerable harvest of
mature timber can take place. On the other hand, the fragile soils of the area
and the special care required in road building to prevent excessive stream siltation
•re factors which must be evaluated carefully.
'
Lumbering of the slopes of the South Fork of the Salmon River in past years greatly
impaired the quality of the water in the stream and destroyed important fish
spawning areas. It was generally concluded that the value of the timber was far
less than the damage done to the quality of the water and the fisheries values.
I earnestly and sincerely suggest a reconsideration of your position on this
important issue keeping in mind the significant trade-offs involved. If you
assess public opinion both in the area and throughout the nation,.! am confident
National Wildlife Federation
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford - 2 - September 24, 1976
that you will find almost unanimous agreement that the Chamberlain Basin should be
included in the Idaho Wilderness proposal sent earlier to the Congress. For your
additional information and use, I am enclosing a copy of a resolution addressing
this issue adopted by the National Wildlife Federation at its 1975 annual meeting.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Ch., Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
Ch., House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
Cecil D. Andrus, Governor of Idaho
Richard Schwarz, President, Idaho Wildlife Federation
P.W. Schneider, NWF Regional Executive
Ernest E. Day, NWP' ID Del.
...
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
The Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Dear Governor Andrus,
October 28, 1976
I
On behalf of the Idaho Conservation League I extend my congratulations
and appreciation to you for the crucial role you and your staff played in the
recent reinstatement of Chamberlain Basin in the President's wilderness pro­posal
to Congress. We are all well aware of the work that you have done with
the White House staff, dating most recently back to September 1, which resulted
in bringing the "Chamberlain story" to the President's attention. We thank you
for your efforts .
Despite the fact that Congressman Symms recently received the "official
word" on the Basin from President Ford and is posing as the person who ini­tiated
the request for Chamberlain's protection, ICL members and other
Idahoans who support the area's wilderness classification doubt very seriously
that Mr. Symms had anything at all to do with Chamberlain's inclusion in the
presidential proposal. We know only too well that he has been generally an
opposing force, during his years in Congress, to the establishment of wilder­ness
in Central Idaho or anywhere else, for that matter. We are pleased to
see that he is finally supporting wilderness designation for Chamberlain, but
I must say that he is arriving rather late to the party. {Some of us are wondering
whether he will finally come to the Hell's Canyon celebration.) In any case, and
despite what may appear in the press or in political pronouncements, there are
many of us who understand quite clearly who Idaho's proven wilderness supporters
are.
I know that you will agree, in addition, that the real heroes of this contro­versy
are the thousands of Idaho citizens who have held fast against the timber
and mining interests, the Secretary of Agriculture and a couple of intransigent
congressmen on behalf of the wild lands of Central Idaho. Most of these Idahoans
will likely see the reinstatement of Chamberlain as a significant primary step
toward the eventual designation of a magnificent River of No Return Wilderness.
As you know, ICL supports the wilderness designation of 2. 3 million acres
in and around the Idaho Primitive Area, which include fourteen highly signifi­cant
contiguous areas. This position is supported by the majority of those who
testified at the Forest Service hearings and by thousands more who have signed
petitions requesting such a designation.
The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
October 28, 1976
page two
From the day that Chamberlain's exc1s1on was announced, we felt confident
that the people of Idaho would strongly protest and eventually overcome such an
action, but feared Chamberlain 1s becoming a "bargaining piece" for the wild areas
surrounding the Idaho Primitive Area, some of which are included in your pro­posal.
Recently a Washington friend of ours was called to the White House to
present arguments in favor of Chamberlain from the point of view of some con­servation
organizations. He phoned us beforehand and asked for advice. We
replied that he should tell the President's people that if the President wanted to
exclude Chamberlain he could try, but that, short of vetoing the bill, he was
bound to lose because the people of Idaho (to say nothing of Frank Church and
Cecil Andrus) would not stand for it. Beyond that, our advice was: "Stand firm
on two-point-three. 11
So, now that you have helped greatly to eliminate Chamberlain as a poten­tial
bargaining piece in the wilderness controversy, perhaps we can all get on to
the real issue -- the protection of the contiguous areas. Again, we extend our
deepest appreciation to you for your efforts on behalf of one of Idaho's most
treasured resources.
Sincerely,
ern Jeff Fereday
Coordinator
PUBLIC LAW 94-579-0Cf. 21, 1976
Public Law 94-579
94th Congress
An Act
To establish public land poli•d Houae of Representative• of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TABI~E OF CONTENTS
TITLI~ 1-SHOR'l' TITJ.~:; POLICIES; DEFINITIONS
Ht>e, lOt. Short title.
Heclurution of policy.
HI'. 202. Land use planning.
Sec. 203. Sales.
Het•. 204. Withdrawals.
Sec. 200. Acquisitions.
Se('. 206. Exchanges.
Sf>c. 207. Qualified conveyees.
St>c. 208. Conveyances.
Sec. 209. ResPrvatlon and conveyance of mineral interest
Sec. 210. Coordination with State and local governments.
S~. 211. Omitted lands.
Sec. 212. Re1·reation and Public Purposes Act.
Hec. 218. National forest townsltes.
Sec. 214. Unintentional Trespass Act.
UTLE III-ADMINIS1"RATION
Sec. 301. BLM directorate and functions.
Hec. 80:l. Management of use, occupancy, and development.
Sec. 303. }~nforcPmPnt authority.
Hef'. 304. Rervic'e c·harges and reimbursements.
Sec. 305. Deposits and forfeitures.
Sec. 306. Working capital i'und.
Se1•. 807. Studies, cooperative agreements, and oontrlbutions.
Sec. 808. Contra1~ts tor surveys and resource protection.
~ec. 809. Advisory councils and pubHc participation.
Sec. 310. Rules and regulations.
Hec. 811. Program report.
Sec. 312. Search and rescue.
~{'(', 813. Sunshine in governu1ent.
Sec. 814. Rerms and conditions.
He